The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-11-02
Supreme Court Decisions.
Hon. Allan collars. Chief-justice.

Hon. Allan Zollarss Shiei-JostiSe-
1889 City of Terre Haute VS.. Theodore
Hudnut Vigo 5. c. Affirmed. Elliott, j.
Suit for damages caused by the negligence OF
the municipal authorities In constructing ana
maintaining sewers. 1t is the duty OF municl-
pal corporation to exercise reasonable care In
providing q plan, we'll as in doing the WORK
under 1t. If such corporation uses reasonable
care to secure and to put into exercise the serV-
ices of com petent engineers. it ought not to be
held liable, although it does turn out that a
mistake was made IL reasonable care is used
to secure the preparation of plans by competent
men, and ordinary care is used to see that the
skill of the engineer expert is brought into
exercise. then there is no nesligence' and
bs liability, although there may
develop a defect In the plan where
q recovery is sought for injuries caused
by defective sewer or by a sewer Of made
Quate size, and the defect or insufficiency is
caused By defect in the plan, it is competent
for the municipal corporation to show that
reasonable care was exercised in employing
competent engineer or expert to prepare the
plan and that ordinary care was used in seeing
to IL that he did exercise skill and care Ev
ldence of consultation with experts employed to
prepare plans or of the examination of plans by
coupcilmen may be competent, although not In
writing. Where the plaintiffs mill was injured
by the overflow of defective sewer. evidence OF
the average net profits which the mill had
earned and was then earning is competent to
go to the jury for consideration in estimating
the damages to the plaintiff during the time the
mill was necessarily closed for repairs.
1856. Johannes kopelke VS.. Ferdinand ko-
pelke. Jasper c. c. Affirmed. Howk. J.-When
the order DOCK entry or tne same DAYS proceed
ipgs in court shows the decision complained
of. the exception thereto at the time and the
leave of the court for specified time in which
to file a bill of exceptions, the leave granted
for the last named purpose does not come too
late because it appears that other steps in the
cause interviewed between the exception and the
time given to reduce the decision to writing.
When notes are not PAYABLE at any specified
place, without any provision for interest, the
lex fori governs their collection. The interest
in such case upon breach of contract is recovera-
h Ia 6ox 4v-1 <h0r 70 10 cd hv a
same law. The statute does not prescribe the
time when a request for a special finding upon
particular questions of facts shall be made. and
it is within the discretion of the court.
1888 Norton A. Meeker vs. John P. c.
Shanks ct al jay c. c. Affirmed. Mitchell. J.
1t is not essential to the legal inception OF q
promissory note that it should have been deliv-
cred to the person named therein payee An
accommodation maker who has no other interest
to subserve in signing paper for another except
to enable that person for whose accommodation
the paper is signed to obtain the money, cannot
complain that the paper was diverted so long as
nothing more is done than to mako it available
for the very purpose for which it was signed.